What is the test for determining whether a defendant has failed to provide the proper record to support the amount of the court's award?

As this record reflects, while defendant insists there is no evidence to support the amount of the court's award, the trial court mentioned in the record at least three times letter briefs and documentary evidence relevant to the school district's calculated losses. Yet neither the letter briefs nor the underlying calculations are before this court. Under these circumstances, the proper course of action is to affirm the trial court's judgment. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [on appeal, the reviewing court presumes the trial court's judgment or order is correct, and " '[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown' "].)

Finally, in reaching this conclusion, we reject defendant's ultimate claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for the same essential reasonsto wit, his failure to provide a proper record and to affirmatively prove error. " 'The burden of proving a claim of inadequate trial assistance is on the appellant. [Citation.] He must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Additionally, he must establish prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that absent counsel's unprofessional errors the result would have been different, before he can obtain relief. [Citations.] Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. [Citations.]' [Citation.] Moreover, when no error occurred, 'defense counsel was not ineffective in making no objection.' [Citations.] Finally, a 'mere failure to object to evidence or argument seldom establishes counsel's incompetence.' [Citations.]" (People v. Felix (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1394-1395.) For the reasons set forth above, defendant cannot meet this standard, and the restitution award, therefore, must stand.⁷

Page 13